I live in a fairly small town outside of Utah, where mormons are a minority. Still there are two wards in the town. Just enough mormons, that you still run into them, and they can still keep an eye on you.

I was in the hospital, and had to stay a few days. I had specifically put down no religion on the paperwork, as this was the first time I had to be in the hospital here. Still somehow, the second day, as I was still recovering, I had a visit from a member, somewhat high ranking in the stake, who also worked where I did. Somehow he knew I was there, though I had told nobody but the hospital staff my name and particulars. I can only surmise that someone working at the hospital, recognized my name, though I had been inactive (for over 15 years at the time), and sent out an alert. Probably thinking that this was the time to send in the vultures, since I would be vulnerable. I had had a close call (don't want to mention too many details).

It is terrible that the person who sent out the alert, violated my right to medical privacy. I hadn't wanted a visit from anyone, let alone a church representative. That's why I put down 'none' for religion on the paperwork. This was some years ago, and I never pressed any charges. But I recently had another somewhat similar event, that reminded me of this one.

Anyone else have this happen?

I just want to speculate that the person who ratted out felt really, really good about it...

Good ol' ghawd had laid you low, had humbled you, and so it was a necessity that the stake big wigs be sent to your bedside... All part of the majestic plan, and ghawd's concern for you... /gag

There is another possibility: it was someone at your job, mormon or not mormon, in HR, who possibly became aware of your medical situation via claim forms sent by the hospital and alerted your coworker, just because...

Not that it matters, because you are absolutely correct about your HIPPA rights having been violated.

At the time, I was aware of who worked in HR, and they were not mormon, though I hadn't considered that possibility.

I was in the hospital again today, and the one doctor who visited me before my procedure, started talking about where I worked, to build a connection as he asked other questions. And when I told him, he asked very quickly, "oh, do you know so and so?", a member also. I am certain that I will get a visit at work in the next few days from my co-worker showing concern for my health.

Yeah, ghawd definitely has some go-to strategies for getting people humbled so that their behaviors can be modified, facilitating their return to righteousness.

We have Free Agency, subject to ghawd messing with it, for, as you noted, ”...the greater good...”

Yes, it happened to my 91 year old mother with dementia...at American Fork hospital. She was in there after a heart scare. I just happened to be there with her on a Sunday when in swooped a couple from somewhere with sacrament trays!! I was livid! I told them to get out. I went to the nurses station and gave them heck. They apologized all over the place. They ASSUMED that because she had LDS on her chart, she would welcome these strangers.

I was in the hospital, and had to stay a few days. I had specifically put down no religion on the paperwork, as this was the first time I had to be in the hospital here.

COMMENT: So, what did you think that your "no religion" designation meant; that they would ensure your privacy from Mormon visitors? Sorry, what it means is that inquiring clergy of any particular denomination will not be directed to you by staff as being someone who identifies with that faith. It doesn't mean that they will protect you from any person who stops by who claims to have an interest in your well-being, unless you specifically state, no visitors except family, or something to that effect.
______________________________________

Still somehow, the second day, as I was still recovering, I had a visit from a member, somewhat high ranking in the stake, who also worked where I did. Somehow he knew I was there, though I had told nobody but the hospital staff my name and particulars. I can only surmise that someone working at the hospital, recognized my name, though I had been inactive (for over 15 years at the time), and sent out an alert. Probably thinking that this was the time to send in the vultures, since I would be vulnerable. I had had a close call (don't want to mention too many details).

COMMENT: The answer is in your statement "I had been inactive for over 15 years at the time." That means nothing. You didn't resign. You were still a member. You were--by your own choice--still affiliated with Mormonism. By remaining on the books as a member you implicitly invite such attention. Your feelings about the Church are left ambiguous. As such, you cannot complain when such ambiguity results in periodic inquiries and unwanted attention.

Moreover, all you had to do when they showed up is kindly invite them to leave. And if they refused, press the nurses button. But stop making the ridiculous claim that your "medical privacy" was violated.

In other words, this is your own fault, and no one else's.
___________________________________________

It is terrible that the person who sent out the alert, violated my right to medical privacy. I hadn't wanted a visit from anyone, let alone a church representative. That's why I put down 'none' for religion on the paperwork. This was some years ago, and I never pressed any charges. But I recently had another somewhat similar event, that reminded me of this one.

COMMENT: Really. They violated your right to medical privacy by mentioning to someone the fact that you were in the hospital? How magnanimous of you for not pressing charges, which by the way would have gotten nowhere in any community.

This is a joke. Do you realize the sacrifices people on this Board have made because they took a stand and resigned, often losing friends and family. And you want sympathy because your "medical privacy" was violated because you apparently did not have the courage to resign?

I suspect you, and many like you, get off on this concept of "poor me" the Mormons are after me again, while in your heart of hearts you can't wait for the next "violation."

Sorry, no sympathy from me.

Also, why do some people on the Board assume that Mormons who profess to being interested in their welfare must be disingenuous. Just become someone is a Mormon does not mean that they must of necessity be insincere or have ulterior motives. They might just care on a human level. Maybe at times we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Henry, this is intemperate. And it is wrong.

Henry I take offense at this statement: "because you did not have the courage to resign." People have complicated lives and stay in for a variety of reasons and even beliefs. To pick at someone for just stating her experience shows lack of character. The board is suppose to be a sympathetic place. So be nice, or go away.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>The answer is in your statement "I had
> been inactive for over 15 years at the time."
> That means nothing. You didn't resign. You were
> still a member. You were--by your own
> choice--still affiliated with Mormonism. By
> remaining on the books as a member you implicitly
> invite such attention. Your feelings about the
> Church are left ambiguous. As such, you cannot
> complain when such ambiguity results in periodic
> inquiries and unwanted attention.

Being inactive doesn't mean 'nothing'. It indicates at least that one has zero interest in being active. There is no implicit or explicit *requirement* to take action in order to disassociate oneself from a former church affiliation. Not resigning does not mean that one is still affiliated with Mormonism. Not attending or participating is a positive indication of one's preference not to be affiliated. Being absent from meetings, gatherings, practices, celebrations, observances and fellowship is not 'ambiguous', rather the opposite. Not jumping through hoops, such as formally resigning, does not mean that one's intentions are 'ambiguous' or that it gives former associates permission to contact or inquire about one.


> Moreover, all you had to do when they showed up is
> kindly invite them to leave. And if they refused,
> press the nurses button. But stop making the
> ridiculous claim that your "medical privacy" was
> violated.

The problem many have with members of proselytizing groups such as Mormons is that being absent from their group for 15 years should be a fairly clear clue that you are not interested in contact from them but they ignore such obvious social cues and yes, it can feel like they are invading your privacy and space. Especially when you are dealing with medical issues your preferences for privacy and peace should be respected. And no, you shouldn't have to declare that - it should be the default position. Which is understood by most people with normal social skills.

Re the medical privacy part of it, I agree with what cl2 has written about the absolute right to privacy that people have concerning medical situations. It is the law. In hospitals where I have worked, merely accessing a patient's file without proven need (for example, if they are not your patient at all or even if they are but you are not directly involved in their current care or not part of a certain aspect of it) is grounds for reproof and can even be, depending on circumstances, grounds for dismissal (for instance, if a celebrity is admitted and people access their chart for non-medical reasons, i.e. curiosity or worse).


> In other words, this is your own fault, and no one
> else's.

Wrong. If 'fault' is to be apportioned, it does not fall on a former member who found themselves in a medical crisis only to end up being targeted by people from a former faith they had long left behind.


> Really. They violated your right to
> medical privacy by mentioning to someone the fact
> that you were in the hospital?

Yes actually. You have the right to privacy which means even mentioning that you are in hospital is a violation of that right. If you choose not to tell anyone you're in, as the OP here stated was the case for them, that should be respected by all caregivers and all hospital employees.


> This is a joke. Do you realize the sacrifices
> people on this Board have made because they took a
> stand and resigned, often losing friends and
> family. And you want sympathy because your
> "medical privacy" was violated because you
> apparently did not have the courage to resign?

We are free to resign. We are also free not to resign. We make our intentions clear by our attendance or lack thereof. To many exmos, freedom means *not* having to jump through a single hoop as laid down by Mormon leaders or other members. There is no exmo charter that resignation is mandatory or else you're not a good, or valid, exmo.

The OP didn't indicate that s/he wanted 'sympathy'. They are just relating a Mormon-connected incident, like many other posters here.

As for having the 'courage to resign'. The manner in which one handles their leave-taking of Mormonism is not a measure of courage but merely a matter of personal preference. As a short term convert I had little knowledge about the concept of formally resigning (until I came to RfM) and also zero interest in jumping through hoops - I just stopped going to meetings. (And yes, that is likely much easier for most converts than for BICs). Again, resignation is not mandatory. It may be an expectation of Mormon leadership or members but that's their issue, not an exmo's.


> I suspect you, and many like you, get off on this
> concept of "poor me" the Mormons are after me
> again, while in your heart of hearts you can't
> wait for the next "violation."

Unlikely in the extreme. And your attitude and conclusions towards the OP would logically apply, it seems, to all exmos on this board who choose not to resign or just ignore the option. For some, the deliberate choice not to resign is a statement of independence and freedom in itself.


> Sorry, no sympathy from me.

Well, that's obvious.


> Also, why do some people on the Board assume that
> Mormons who profess to being interested in their
> welfare must be disingenuous. Just become someone
> is a Mormon does not mean that they must of
> necessity be insincere or have ulterior motives.
> They might just care on a human level. Maybe at
> times we should give them the benefit of the
> doubt.

Why? RfM isn't here to give Mormons the benefit of the doubt. If people want to vent, or share, or disclose, or question, or describe, or yes, complain, that's OK here. Without having to pull their punches. Without having to acknowledge any positives within a church that hurt them. Maybe they do care 'on a human level'. But that's not the experience of many, many posters. And maybe the unwanted visitors *don't* care but are jumping through hoops themselves, as VTs or HTs (or whatever they call them now). So who are the insincere ones? The invasive ones? The pains in the backside ones?

Not the exmo who comes here to share an unpleasant experience with fellow exmos.

Which is part of what RfM is all about.

And it doesn't help to get kicked in the teeth because one isn't being fair to Mormons! This site unabashedly lacks any pretense that its purpose is to present Mormonism or its members in a positive light. That doesn't mean lying or exaggerating or demeaning it without reason. But it's a place where you are welcome to say how you feel without being called out for being wrong or unfair or stupid or whatever negative trait a pro-Mormon, for instance, wants to accuse us of.

If Mormonism is something you “get over”, why are you still here? This is a world of therapy and triggers. You can’t expect exmos to have rational reactions to surprise visits from Mormons.

But I kind of get it. The people aren’t the problem, it’s their beliefs. Mormon weirdness is very predictable.

When a gay teenager cannot reconcile who he is with the “truth” as dogmatically taught by Mormon doctrine and demanded by his parents, and succumbs to such pressures by committing suicide, that is an OUTRAGE.

When a non-Mormon mother is denied access to her daughter’s temple marriage, and a surrogate “mother” is assigned to “assist” the daughter, that is an OUTRAGE.

When a Mormon hospital patient gets an unwanted visit from a well-meaning member, that is, well . . . INCONVENIENT.

So, to begin with, let’s not conflate inconvenience with outrage.

Moreover, notice that in the first two examples, the victims had NO control of the circumstances. They had no power. In the third example, the hospital patient had ALL the power. In the first place he could have dispelled the ambiguity of his commitment to Mormonism by resigning. In the second place, he could have informed the nurses that he wanted his visits to be restricted. In the third place, he could have immediately terminated the visit by asking the visitor to leave. By his own account, he apparently did none of these things. So, how is he a victim of Mormonism? Please somebody tell me.

When someone remains a Mormon for 15 years after determining that it is either false, evil or both, they invite and acquiesce in interaction with Mormons who naturally and rightfully assume that their commitment to Mormonism has not been finally resolved. Some part of the door has been left open. See my comments on this thread:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2234636,2236622#msg-2236622

But the analysis doesn’t stop there. What about the misguided Mormon who leaves his home and family and drives across town to the hospital in good faith to visit the member patient. Why must we assume that his or her motives are anything but out of genuine concern? The fact that Mormonism is false, or that Mormon leaders focus on activating the inactive, does not necessarily mean that any individual member is being disingenuous when taking the time to visit an inactive Mormon in the hospital. The “inconvenience” here weighs much more in favor of the visitor than the visited. And all this “inconvenience” occurs because the patient has sat on the fence for 15 years, perhaps hedging his Pascalian bets.

My guess is that this patient had received countless visits from Mormons during this 15 year period, and surely must have realized that such visits go with the territory of being a Mormon. So, although in hindsight I am willing to offer some sympathy to any hospital patient who receives an unwanted religious oriented visit, somebody needs to explain to me why a Mormon hospital patient is justifiably shocked and outraged when visited by a Mormon expressing concern about their well-being?

I am passionate about this because, like many of you, I have personal experience with true Mormon outrage. (which, by the way, is one reason I am still here!) It offends me when exMormons (or especially inactive Mormons) trivialize such outrage by making every inconvenience involving Mormons an offense to be posted and blasted. Part of recovery—it seems to me—is understanding the difference between the really outrageous outcomes of Mormonism and mere personal inconvenience that is really quite trivial in comparison, and which in many cases we have some control over but refuse to exercise that control.

You are the only person who has used the term outrage. I was simply relating a story. I never used that word, it was terrible and bad. Also, I was upset at the hospital worker who divulged that I was there to local mormon authorities, not at the member who came to visit me. I have known him for a long time, and I get along with him for the most part. Every relationship has its issues, and I wish he didn't talk church at work, but he is a good guy, I never said he wasn't.

Why are you so angry at me? I didn't do anything to you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2019 05:03PM by sonofthelefthand.

"It is terrible that the person who sent out the alert, violated my right to medical privacy. I hadn't wanted a visit from anyone, let alone a church representative. That's why I put down 'none' for religion on the paperwork. This was some years ago, and I never pressed any charges."

COMMENT: Well, you apparently thought this rather harmless incident was "terrible" enough to consider "pressing charges." That sounds a lot like outrage to me. But in any case, it seems to me that your characterization of this incident was a gross over-reaction to an event that you should have anticipated and arguably invited by your continued affiliation with Mormonism. Moreover, I reacted to your whole "victim" attitude, when your visitor went out of his way to visit you and probably had the best of intentions.

That said, I am not angry with you personally; really I'm not. I don't even know you, and don't even know the full story of this incident, as you yourself don't. I am merely responding to a post that's all. People can agree or disagree and I respect that. I hope you can learn from my perspective, even if harshly delivered, as I often learn from posts harshly directed at me. When passionate expression is outlawed or discouraged on the Board, something important will be lost.

In any event, I wish you well.

Well, Henry, have you considered that your outrage at the OP might be an over-reaction on your part to his post?

Who are you to decide what might justifiably upset him? Was he not entitled to feel the way he felt if he believed his privacy had been violated?

Do you think your view is necessarily the only correct one?

Were you just having a bad day?

Why exactly did you feel the need to jump down OP's throat?

Well, Henry, have you considered that your outrage at the OP might be an over-reaction on your part to his post?

COMMENT: Yes. I always consider that, and frankly admit that often my reaction *is* a bit over the top. But that does not diminish the logic of my posts, including in this thread! Maybe I was a bit hard on the OP, but my psychological state, or the psychological states of those taking offense to my comments are not the issue here. After all, the point was the legitimacy of *his* response to the incident *he* described, not *my* emotional response to his thread. In other words, he set the stage for the thread, not I. And it wasn't about me (at least until now!)
____________________________________

Who are you to decide what might justifiably upset him? Was he not entitled to feel the way he felt if he believed his privacy had been violated?

COMMENT: Feelings are just feelings. They are not right or wrong. So, I am not so concerned about his feelings, however he might describe them--except that such feelings were negative and powerful enough to motivate him to assign blame.
What I am concerned about here is his stated assessment of blame or responsibility for such feelings.

In my opinion, neither the Mormon visitor or the Mormon Church was to blame, simply because by his own admission he *was* a member of the Church and as such implicitly invited their interest and concern. When you are a member of an organization, you should expect to be contacted from time to time, particularly when there is a legitimate concern for your welfare.
_____________________________________

Do you think your view is necessarily the only correct one?

COMMENT: No. I expect the OP and others to take such views for what they are worth. That's all. That is my approach to all posts on the Board.
_____________________________________

Were you just having a bad day?

COMMENT: No. I am genuinely passionate about this issue for personal reasons. And I regret that this passion not only resulted in offense to many, it got in the way of the logic of my argument.
_____________________________________

Why exactly did you feel the need to jump down OP's throat?

COMMENT: Well, part of this is my argumentative style; part of it is my passion for this issue, as I noted; and part of it is wanting to leave an impression on the OP in hopes he will reconsider his views on this issue. Of the three, the latter is the most important to me, with the other two often getting in the way.

>But that does not diminish the logic of my posts, including in this thread! Maybe I was a bit hard on the OP, but my psychological state, or the psychological states of those taking offense to my comments are not the issue here

What logic is that Henry? All you did was judge the psychological state of the poster and condemn it.

>What I am concerned about here is his stated assessment of blame or responsibility for such feelings

And why are you concerned about that? How does his assessment of blame affect you in any way?

>In my opinion, neither the Mormon visitor or the Mormon Church was to blame

And the OP has a different opinion. Why is yours correct instead of his - after all, he is the one who was involved.

>Well, part of this is my argumentative style; part of it is my passion for this issue, as I noted; and part of it is wanting to leave an impression on the OP in hopes he will reconsider his views on this issue. Of the three, the latter is the most important to me, with the other two often getting in the way.

The message might be better received if you would not be so combative.
Your logic is not as impressive as you think it is.

sonofthelefthand wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "It is terrible that the person who sent out the
> alert, violated my right to medical privacy.


Henry Bemis replied:

> COMMENT: Well, you apparently thought this rather
> harmless incident was "terrible" enough to
> consider "pressing charges."

It IS terrible that a hospital employee violated a patient's right to privacy. Henry - the bar is very low for this - merely mentioning that Henry or George or Luke or Joe is a patient - anywhere - is an egregious invasion of a patient's privacy - that is the the LAW and a basic principle in any medical facility. An employee can be FIRED for such a violation. That makes it very much a major breach against a patient's interests, answerable by authorities by severe penalties.


Henry:
>That sounds a lot
> like outrage to me. But in any case, it seems to
> me that your characterization of this incident was
> a gross over-reaction to an event that you should
> have anticipated and arguably invited by your
> continued affiliation with Mormonism.

So what. Anybody has a right to be "outraged" by an invasion of their privacy. I was an inpatient once, as an adult, and a new GP for some strange reason decided to call my mother to discuss my case with her. I hadn't lived at home for years and had not felt a need to inform my parents I was in the hospital for a relatively minor complaint. When the MD mentioned that he had called my mother I almost leaped out of bed, enough of a visible negative reaction that it really startled him. He should never have done such a thing - first, there was no medical need as I was not in any danger of major consequences to my health, and second, because he should not have assumed that my parents, with whom I did not live, were involved in my life or medical care. He meant well and I wasn't harmed by it (I was on good terms with my parents; it was just that I was an adult, living away from home at the time, and we did not share our every waking moment with each other) so I let it go. But I could have lodged a complaint about violation of privacy merely for that one phone call that I would not have chosen to make. And the point is that it is *my* right to choose.


Henry:
>Moreover, I
> reacted to your whole "victim" attitude, when your
> visitor went out of his way to visit you and
> probably had the best of intentions.

You are out of line calling the OP's feelings a "victim attitude". You could, in that case, say the same thing about every single poster here, as many of us, if not all, have related at least one incident where Mormons bugged us, or worse, and that, after all, is the point of this board - to discuss our Mormon experiences. It's up to each individual to describe their own reactions and they shouldn't have to explain why they feel as they do, not here, where the focus is on the founding principle that Mormonism is harmful to many and people are welcome to vent here about their own experiences and feelings.

Worse than calling someone out for having a 'victim attitude' is your defence of the Mormon visitor. Why give him the benefit of the doubt and not the RfM poster? He is merely stating how he felt when this happened. He's not asking to be denounced for being unfair to the Mormon Church or a Mormon who drops by when he is undergoing a medical crisis. Again, this board is for participants to relate their experiences and feelings, not to defend the activities of Mormons.

I didn't notice sonofthelefthand whining or exaggerating or especially decrying the church overmuch at all. I don't understand your reaction to his post at all.

Plus, criticizing a person's reactions by stating that other people have it worse is extremely non-supportive. It's not up to anybody to rate a person's negative experiences and then tell them theirs doesn't measure up to someone else's and therefore they shouldn't whine about it. Again, if that was the case then you'd have to criticize many posters here. Nobody is saying it's the worst thing in the world to dislike a church or its ethos, compared to death and destruction that others face. But, in our lives, if something is negative it can be a big hairy deal to us and it's understandable that we want to vent about it and discuss it with others who are likely to understand. Yes, it's useful to keep things in perspective. We're not being sucked into a gigantic sinkhole, for instance, or falling into a volcano, or involved in hand-to-hand combat, struggling to save our lives. Etc. But stuff happens, we have feelings about it, it can be a struggle to cope with some unfortunate incidents or circumstances and it helps to talk it over, especially in groups like this where many others can empathize because they are so familiar with what we're talking about. One of the main reasons that RfM has been so helpful to so many through the years is that you don't have to explain what hurts and why - people already get it. Much less should you have to struggle to defend your feelings about certain mo-related situations.


Henry:
>I hope you can learn from my
> perspective, even if harshly delivered, as I often
> learn from posts harshly directed at me. When
> passionate expression is outlawed or discouraged
> on the Board, something important will be lost.

Many would not. The clue is in your own words: "harshly delivered". Who needs it? Because it appears that you learn from that approach does not mean that others will welcome it.

I don't equate harsh delivery with "passionate expression". Two very different things. If people are hesitant to post about their Mormon experiences about which they have negative feelings for fear of someone "harshly delivering" a rebuke of them and a defence of Mormons, *that* will be something important about this board that will be lost.


To sonofthelefthand, I hope you know that many, many posters here would support your reaction and would feel the same if they were in your shoes. I'm glad you got through the medical incident and I appreciate you discussing it with us. Too, please don't feel that you need to post personal details if you don't want to. You don't have to justify yourself to anybody.

Good health to you!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2019 06:05PM by Nightingale.

Thank you Nightingale, you verbalized what I was wanting to respond far better than I could have.

I could be wrong, because I don't know Henry, but the intensity of his objection really caught me off guard. I really wasn't expecting that. Maybe he didn't mean it that way, but it was the way I perceived it.

I appreciate your words and support, as well as those of other posters. Thank you.

You're most welcome. It can certainly be startling, as you've expressed, when you relate a personal experience and/or feelings about a mo-related conundrum on this, a long-time *ex-mo* board and get strong pushback on it, especially when you're just wanting to vent your frustration or are seeking support amongst people you think will understand without needing exhaustive explanations and justifications. This is part of the reason an exmo therapist, or friend, or group (like this!) is often more helpful than nevermos - you don't (usually) have to tell them *why* it hurts or frustrates you - they know!

To me, there's a big difference between posting an opinion, when you could reasonably expect that there won't be 100% agreement and, in fact, you could welcome some alternate ideas, and posting a personal account when you're either just wanting to talk to others who have had similar experiences or you're seeking fellow feeling from those who are likely to understand you in a way others can't. If the former, you may enjoy the exchanges and may come to see things from a different point of view. If the latter, you may not be up for interactions that feel unfriendly or unhelpful.

Yes, you kind of have to put yourself out there and take what you get but as the board's purpose is stated as being for support that's primarily, I assume, what people want when they write certain types of posts. In this case, if you were merely stating the opinion that Mormons shouldn't seek out exmos to visit in hospital (a discussion we've had here before!) that colours the type of responses you would likely get and if there is disagreement, it's not likely to be personally wounding or too stressful. But you were relating a personal experience that was at least frustrating - one most of us should be able to easily understand and commiserate about. Being ill at the time, and therefore more highly stressed about what's going on around you, would intensify the unpleasant, unwanted encounter. That likely goes without saying to most RfMers.

Your post isn't unlike many one can read here on any given day - frustration with ongoing encounters with Mormonism, a religion we have chosen to leave. Many, many, many do not formally resign. The onus, as far as they are concerned, does not fall upon them to jump through that Mormon hoop, after all the times they were forced to jump as a member. As I said, most normal organizations, groups, people can take a hint - if you absent yourself then you are choosing to disengage from them. They don't demand yet more acquiescence from you to follow their processes. They just update their list, literally or metaphorically, and you're not on it, as you clearly indicate is your wish - merely by your continued absence.

The only point I *may* agree with Henry Bemis about is that IF a poster is stating that the Mormons won't leave them alone and are swamping their lives, a situation which could possibly be remedied by an ex-member resigning, they could give that a try. (As we know, some Mormons ignore even that). But I also sympathize greatly with those who say they voted with their feet and shouldn't have to take further action to satisfy some redundant Mormon demand.

Your situation was totally different from that. I have read many posts here from people describing essentially the same experience as you had, that at times of crisis in one's life, members show up, uninvited, taking advantage of one's challenging circumstances. The fact that an individual Mormon may not realize how that comes across to an ex-member is *not* the exmo's fault or responsibility.

But if we all buy into the Bemis way, RfM may as well close up shop - because who could post about their exmo life without getting hit upside the head by someone telling them sternly why they were in the wrong? (Um, isn't that one of the compelling reasons people dislike Mormonism in the first place? Now we have to take it as exmos on an exmo board that presupposes that posters don't like Mormons getting up in their face at inopportune times?). No - nobody posts here expecting to get smacked in the face about how they are being unfair to Mormons!

A while ago I wrote here about an incident that occurred when a sports star was the subject of racist taunts from some in the crowd of spectators in the middle of a match. The player described how unexpected it was, how hurtful, and how it actually made him cry. My point was that if an accomplished and respected adult can be reduced to tears in public by bullying, how much more so a child or other person in a weaker position - meaning, at least, tread gently with kids. To my shock, the first reply castigated me for equating the adult star's discomfort with childhood abuse, saying how appalling and uninformed I was (or words to that effect). I felt I had obviously not put my point across well if that is what a reader got out of it - nothing at all like what I was trying to say in my post. Fortunately for me, it wasn't a personal experience but an opinion of mine, with what I thought was a great example that people could relate to. Guess not. So in that case, it didn't really hurt my feelings but I was sorry it turned out that way.

That's why I say that posting an opinion, to me, is different from disclosing a personal account or sharing emotions. I would hope that readers would take a minute to see a difference and think about what the poster needs. However, often people just react and dive in and threads go askew and an OP can actually be lost in the kerfuffle that results. Sometimes expecting people to only think of the other person/poster is a lost cause. It's an ideal to me though. If we think only of what we think or feel ourselves or our own opinions and beliefs or see everything in terms of our views alone then we aren't likely to be all that supportive in responding to the other person. Even anonymously on a public board we can be of enormous help to one another - or not. Worst case, we are actually destructive.

I can say it didn't hurt my feelings (which is a major accomplishment for me, btw, as I tend to be too sensitive, a lifelong painful affliction) but OK, so it did a bit, despite this all being anon. I thought back to my volunteer work with survivors of violence and other traumas and to all that I experienced and learned during that time, as well as in nursing and other fields of endeavour. I haven't been a victim myself of violence, not the kind I witnessed while working with the police, so I can't come at things from that perspective. But I did learn a little bit there so for someone to accuse me of being clueless, uncaring, and worse, when it comes to victims did really shock me (not that they would know my background or experiences). I went on many calls with the police concerning women in domestic violence situations. That is a good way to lose any judgemental attitudes one might harbour and come to a greater and more helpful understanding of the issues involved. During one call, after the police had left and I was helping the woman pack up ready to leave her house (and husband) she happened to mention that her husband had taken his (deadly) weapon with him but she was terrified that he was planning to come back soon. So was I terrified then at that point. I am not outstandingly physically courageous and I was very afraid, even more so when she uttered the word 'machete', the weapon her angry husband was brandishing, somewhere out there, but expected back any time. My skin began to prickle, then heave, it felt like, I got so scared. I quickly called the cops back and they returned to wait while we rushed harder to pack. Weird how that situation, from years ago, flooded back to me when the person who soundly criticized not my post, but me, accusing me of utter ignorance for not understanding victims. I thought I know at least a little more, personally, than maybe came across in my post, and it is up to me, certainly, to try and make myself understood. It can be a challenge at times though, especially with the more daunting topics, but also when readers are too quick to pounce.

In any case, I am really just trying to say I can relate to you feeling startled about how your post was received. You can start to think you have to explain and defend yourself and then you end up disclosing more than you intended, or even feel comfortable with. I can understand your concern about id'ing yourself by the merest detail, and that is valid. Again, I have a memory of when I was telling a friend about an incident at work (medical field) (often a bad idea to talk about work in such an environment). The *only* details I mentioned over and above a general comment was that the couple involved were extraordinarily good-looking and they had twin daughters. Instantly my friend said "Oh, that's Jan and Jim!" (not the real names). Never would I have expected that she would know patients I encountered in a different part of town but they turned out to be good friends of hers and of course she recognized them from my description, albeit brief. I instantly shut my big mouth and she nagged me unmercifully for months afterwards to know what I was going to say. That taught me a lot about the importance of strict confidentiality in medical matters. Even saying you saw this or that person in this place or the other can be a contravention of their right to privacy. (So my profession is the primary reason I am so intense about the issue you faced - your right as a patient to absolute privacy).

It occurred to me to mention to you that if you have disclosed more details than you are comfortable with, that contain specifics you think could identify you, as you mentioned, you can ask Admin to delete those posts (or even your thread). It's an option, that's all. You don't post very often (I remember your board name from previously but don't see you around very often). Even though this may have been a useful discussion and some folks have taken time to respond to you, as the OP you get to control the life of your thread. If you want to keep the thread you could at least get rid of the posts where you give details of your medical condition that are possibly identifying. Just a thought.

In any case, glad you made it through the difficulty. Hope all is well with you now.

Funny, isn't it, how some things end up being more complicated (like this topic!) than you'd expect when you start out.

It IS terrible that a hospital employee violated a patient's right to privacy. Henry - the bar is very low for this - merely mentioning that Henry or George or Luke or Joe is a patient - anywhere - is an egregious invasion of a patient's privacy - that is the the LAW and a basic principle in any medical facility. An employee can be FIRED for such a violation. That makes it very much a major breach against a patient's interests, answerable by authorities by severe penalties.

COMMENT: But, we are not told who leaked this information. The OP does not know. Maybe it was a friend, or family member. I don't know, and apparently the OP does not know either. But, in any event, the OP would never have known about the leak if it had not been for the visit. So, I am assuming that it was the visit that upset him; making the visit the primary issue here, and not the leak. In short, again, if you don't want such a visit, either in the hospital or anywhere else, resign; don't rely upon other people protecting your privacy, when you can protect it yourself. (Note: Had the OP been a non-member my attitude about such a visit would be entirely different because in that case the OP's welfare would be none of their damn business! But when he is a member it *is* their business.)
___________________________________________

So what. Anybody has a right to be "outraged" by an invasion of their privacy.

COMMENT: Suppose the OP's mother stopped by because she had been alerted to his hospitalization by the "leaker" and wanted to make sure he was O.K. Or suppose the mother was called, and because she was out of town, she asked the Bishop to stop by. Would the OP still have a right to be "outraged" by an invasion of his privacy? One's "privacy rights" do not exist in a contextual vacuum.
________________________________________

You are out of line calling the OP's feelings a "victim attitude". You could, in that case, say the same thing about every single poster here, as many of us, if not all, have related at least one incident where Mormons bugged us, or worse, and that, after all, is the point of this board - to discuss our Mormon experiences.

COMMENT: I don't think a "victim attitude" helps recovery. I have such an attitude myself in some contexts, and it doesn't help me in the least. But it especially doesn't help when it involves misplaced blame, so I think we all have to be careful. That said, I would never suggest that anyone should not share their feelings on the Board or their experiences, including the OP. But, it is not helpful--in my view--if all we get back in such cases is validation. Sometimes, a different perspective is appropriate, and even criticism.
_______________________________________

Worse than calling someone out for having a 'victim attitude' is your defence of the Mormon visitor. Why give him the benefit of the doubt and not the RfM poster?

COMMENT: I could care less about the visitor. I care about the OP. Period! But we sometimes need people to point out when the object of our blame is only blameworthy because they are Mormon, and not for substantive moral reasons. Again, if the visitor knew that OP was not a member, instead of a member, I would be ready and willing to assign blame. But that was not the case here.
_____________________________________________

He is merely stating how he felt when this happened. He's not asking to be denounced for being unfair to the Mormon Church or a Mormon who drops by when he is undergoing a medical crisis. Again, this board is for participants to relate their experiences and feelings, not to defend the activities of Mormons.

COMMENT: When someone posts on the Board, I assume they want feedback--and not just validation. That is precisely what separates us from our experience with Mormons.
________________________________________

Plus, criticizing a person's reactions by stating that other people have it worse is extremely non-supportive. It's not up to anybody to rate a person's negative experiences and then tell them theirs doesn't measure up to someone else's and therefore they shouldn't whine about it. Again, if that was the case then you'd have to criticize many posters here.

COMMENT: I agree. I only made these comparisons to highlight the point that if we are non-discriminatory in all our anti-Mormon feelings, we can lose sight of the fact that Mormonism generates real and serious damage. But, I think you are right here. If I cannot be supportive, I need to at least be more gracious in my criticisms, or as one posted suggested (before being deleted), just go away.
__________________________________________

I have to go, so cannot respond further. I sincerely thank you for your comments.

And I won't be back to see you dissect my reply.

IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO TELL SOMEONE THAT A PERSON IS IN THE HOSPITAL IF YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE. I type medical records. I can't even tell my neighbors or family if I type someone we know. AND I DO. I've even typed my mother and brother--and they don't know. We sign papers and if a person ratted him out, that is a HIPAA violation and you can be fired, which the person should have been if they found who it was who told someone he was in the hospital.

AND he could have sued. Yes, he can sue for something like that.

AND I have resigned. It doesn't stop the mormons from bugging me. I think they bug me more now than they did before I resigned. I'm now even a bigger target. Just because you resign doesn't free you up from being a missionary target.

Is it possible someone at your work mentioned you were in the hospital? You stated this person had a connection to where you are/were employed.

OP stated /she had told no-one they were in hospital.

I had been losing blood in my stool (black liquid look), I couldn't stand up without getting dizzy, though I didn't know what that meant at the time. I called 911 and was taken to the hospital. They gave me blood, and scoped me to find where the bleeding was coming from. I didn't have time to call work, or let anyone know, not friends, or family even. The only way anyone could have known was if someone from the hospital had mentioned it.

The member that came to visit me was a co-worker who was senior to me at work, and I always felt uncomfortable when he talked church with me at work. I didn't feel I could do anything but be nice in return without putting myself in a more precarious position. I know many on this board have resigned, and I applaud them for that. For me I have chosen not to for almost 35 years now. It may be that I do lack the courage to resign, though I am slowly moving toward that possibility, but I am still not there. I have been fairly lucky though, because I have had almost no contact with mormons except at work. Ever since I moved to this area for work I haven't been home taught, and I like that a lot. I only remembered this encounter because of a recurrence that I explained above to EOD.

One reason to get off the books is if you are ever too frail to look out for your own interests. We have had stories of members who were coerced for donations to the church while sick and vulnerable in the hospital.

If anything like this ever happens again, definitely make a complaint to the president of the hospital. That's what hospital administrators are there for.

And don't feel afraid to tell people who enter your room that you are not well enough to take visitors. Buzz the nurses' station if you need to. You should never feel under obligation to accept visitors even if they are higher-ups at work.

"I know many on this board have resigned, and I applaud them for that. For me I have chosen not to for almost 35 years now. It may be that I do lack the courage to resign, though I am slowly moving toward that possibility, but I am still not there."

COMMENT: Yes, you are still not there; and THAT is the source of your problem as stated in this post, not the Mormon Church, its representatives, or the hospital staff! But, that's O.K. take your time. In the meantime, however, don't blame the Mormon Church or its representatives for *your* lack of resolve or "lack of courage" to resign. That is on you!

(And, by the way, what specifically are you afraid of? That would be a far more meaningful post where substantial help and encouragement would be freely offered from multiple perspectives.)

Good luck, and all the best.

I am afraid of losing my job.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2019 09:15AM by sonofthelefthand.

You don't have to justify anything to anyone here. Some people resign, some people don't. Everyone has their reasons for why they do what they do, and they are all fine and no one here should feel like they need to justify why they've decided one way or another. Some people do have strong feelings on both sides of the question of "to resign or not to resign". Everyone needs to make the right choice for themselves.

I have no idea why Henry Bemis has decided to take this stance, but I hope you've seen that a lot of people here disagree and are pushing back on his opinions.

You have a right to your privacy, especially in a medical situation. (it is the law for a reason). Multiple people have posted how their privacy has been invaded by various members of the church. It's one of the reasons this board exists, for people to know that they aren't alone in dealing with these types of invasions.

I myself have posted how frustrated I was that a year after resigning, the missionaries showed up at my door, asking for me by name, and got support here. The way the church ignores people's privacy in the name of "helping" is horrible.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I have no idea why Henry Bemis has decided to take this stance, but I hope you've seen that a lot of people here disagree and are pushing back on his opinions.

COMMENT: Well, let me explain:

First: Going along with the Mormon program of manipulation and control by remaining a member when one "knows" it is false and destructive is morally objectionable by any standard. Might there by extenuating circumstances justifying such? I suppose. But they are rare, and in my opinion personal convenience, including avoiding offense to friends and loved ones, is not one of them.

Second, allowing oneself to be manipulated into living a lie, or encouraging someone to do that, is psychologically unhealthy and damaging to one's self esteem. I can "feel" that in the OP, who appears to be a classic case of the effects of Mormon manipulation.

Finally, I am a traditional humanist. I believe in the power of individuals to learn and grow, acquire knowledge, and take control of their thoughts and behavior, and thus their lives. That is how every one of us got out of Mormonism. At some point our values took control over our fears of adverse consequences.

Many of those who have expressed disagreement with me in this thread (not all) are ENABLERS. They think all anti-Mormon feelings are both correct and justified; and their job is to validate and support all such feelings and assessments at all costs and without question.

In this case, the Enablers think they are helping OP by simply telling him that his Mormon-bashing assessment of this hospital experience is valid and O.K., and has nothing to do with his own personal choices. Moreover, he need not feel any pressure to resign, because resigning is just too difficult for some. Better to be manipulated until "the time is right for you." It's all good. Don't let people like HB hurt your feelings.

Sorry, that is not me.

>"In this case, the Enablers think they are helping OP by simply telling him that his Mormon-bashing assessment of this hospital experience is valid and O.K.,"

Enablers? What exactly are people enabling? Dislike for the LDS church? Not wanting one's privacy violated? How exactly is this a bad thing?

I do find it interesting that you seem to think that "mormon-bashing" is a bad thing on an ex-mormon recovery board. If you haven't noticed, people here have been hurt by the church, it's not a place for us to all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

>"and has nothing to do with his own personal choices."

His personal choices, as far as I can tell, were to be left alone from religious people during a medical procedure at a hospital. You are the one who seems to be inflating things, adding terms like "victim" and that somehow having his privacy invaded should be something he should just accept (and not something that is literally against the law).

>"Moreover, he need not feel any pressure to resign, because resigning is just too difficult for some. Better to be manipulated until "the time is right for you." It's all good. Don't let people like HB hurt your feelings."

I'm glad you're a "traditional humanist" who "believe[s] in the power of individuals to learn and grow, acquire knowledge" because, here's something you can learn, you don't know everything, your opinions on resigning are just that, your opinions. You don't know all the reasons why people do or do not resign and your condescending statement and claiming that those who do not resign are still being manipulated unless they do is nonsense. There are many on this board who believe that resigning is giving in to the church's manipulation because you are following their process to leave and giving into their authority over you to do so.

Resigning isn't the end-all, be-all you seem to be claiming it is. Perhaps for you, resigning didn't have personal consequences or you were OK with those consequences, not everyone was in that boat. Not everyone can give up their job, family, or social connections to resign. That doesn't mean the church is still manipulating them, it means that they have to make a choice, a difficult one that you claim to understand can be difficult, yet comment about it as if it's nothing and there are no downsides to anyone.

I myself resigned and a year later had missionaries knocking on my door asking for me by name. Resigning doesn't solve everything for everyone, which is another reason why some people don't bother with it. Do I regret resigning, no, but I also wonder sometimes if it was worth the effort knowing that my well meaning parents will continue to send the missionaries to my house.

Let people make up their own minds and leave the condescending tone and guilt trips for the church.

I'm glad you're a "traditional humanist" who "believe[s] in the power of individuals to learn and grow, acquire knowledge" because, here's something you can learn, you don't know everything, your opinions on resigning are just that, your opinions.

COMMENT: Right. Just my opinions. Did I claim they were anything more?
__________________________________________

You don't know all the reasons why people do or do not resign and your condescending statement and claiming that those who do not resign are still being manipulated unless they do is nonsense.

COMMENT: When one remains a member after finding out it is false and destructive it is usually because of some "hold" the Church has on someone or something associated with that person, e.g. a parent; a job; a spouse, children, etc. The Church maintains these holds in order to discourage people from leaving, the very thing we are talking about. And when one justifies remaining in the Church because of such a hold, they *are* by definition being manipulated.
____________________________________________

There are many on this board who believe that resigning is giving in to the church's manipulation because you are following their process to leave and giving into their authority over you to do so.

COMMENT: Such is rationalizing nonsense. The resigning process is non-intrusive and reasonable. When I hear such a claim, I really wonder what the "real" reason is for their staying.
____________________________________________

Resigning isn't the end-all, be-all you seem to be claiming it is. Perhaps for you, resigning didn't have personal consequences or you were OK with those consequences, not everyone was in that boat. Not everyone can give up their job, family, or social connections to resign. That doesn't mean the church is still manipulating them, it means that they have to make a choice, a difficult one that you claim to understand can be difficult, yet comment about it as if it's nothing and there are no downsides to anyone.

COMMENT: Sorry, but for the reasons stated above it is still manipulation. Now, maybe there are justifiable reasons to allow such manipulation in some cases, but it is still manipulation.

I know the choice is difficult; continue to be manipulated into staying, or resign. Very hard!

>"I know the choice is difficult; continue to be manipulated into staying, or resign. Very hard!"

I just described a situation where resigning made no difference in my life, except to waste the time filling out the church's required paperwork to do so. It may have been only a few minutes to do, but still it made little to no difference. Should I have bothered with resigning? You seem to be saying, emphatically, that yes, I should have resigned. Maybe, maybe not, it doesn't seem to have mattered much one way or the other.

Everyone has their reasons one way or the other and you are oversimplifying something that, for many people, is a very complex thing. But, you blow that off as "rationalizing nonsense".

So, you do you. Thankfully, not everyone here thinks as black and white as you do.

It didn't work for you because by your own admission you have a mother who you continues to refer you to Mormons for contact. I have been out for 15 years, and no problems.

But, not surprisingly, you miss the point. It is not about how it makes life better for you, its about cutting ties to a Church that you acknowledge is false and harmful. In short, its ultimately a moral issue.

And I am not thinking in black and white. Maybe for some given case there *is* an overriding moral concern that trumps the moral imperative to distance yourself from a false and harmful religious cult. I admit that! So, what is your problem? You apparently think whether one continues to identify with such an organization is morally irrelevant. I disagree.

It took me 35 years to resign... got my confirmation email just the other day... there is a lawyer in Utah that is more than happy to do it for you... fill out a form and they do the rest. It is important to resign because as long as you're on the books the church can still discipline you through excommunication etc.

When you were in the hospital nobody had the right to visit you uninvited regardless of their good intentions. The church specializes in your down on your luck which makes you accessible to receiving the spirit. The next time (if in when) your in the hospital. Make it perfectly clear that you are receiving only certain visitors. All others denied. The hospital will honor that and are good at keeping unwanted pest away.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2019 09:54AM by shylock.

Part of the point too is that sonofthelefthand was acutely ill at the time and didn't have time or energy at that moment to talk to staff about restricting visitors. A big part too is that after so many years of absence from church it likely doesn't immediately leap to mind that one must post a notice to keep unwanted visitors at bay.

I haven't been to church for way, way longer than I was in. I would be *shocked* if any Mormon visitors showed up trying to get me back (well, part of the surprise would be that they would bother as they seemed as happy to see the back of me as I was to eschew them and their church).

I usually include the disclaimer in my posts that I was a short term convert, and I don't live in Utah or in the USA even, so I know my situation is different from BICs who have long ties to Mormonism, including family, neighbours and friends who are still in, as well as still living in proximity to the American religion of their birth.

From reading accounts from BICs here for a long time I know that in times of stress or need Mormons may swoop to interact with 'inactives' in hopes of getting them back. Often unavoidable, based on their beliefs. Of course, that theoretically could be avoided, as Henry so vociferously expounded, by having resigned. However, to many exmos it is a point of honour to ignore the rules of the Mormon Church which they have left by declining the option of formally resigning. They resent the Mormon expectation, or don't care, or can't be bothered to jump through that hoop. Which is their right. Too, at least until recently, it wasn't that well known that one could or should resign or how to do it. (In the real world, as I said above, failure to show up at meetings is a strong indication of the preference to stay away). The onus should not automatically be assumed to fall on the ex-member to dot and cross the i's and t's for Mormons. It's their beliefs, not the former member's.

In non-mo churches of my acquaintance, they would yearly review their membership list. If someone hadn't attended for that time they were assumed to have switched to a different congregation and the membership numbers adjusted accordingly. Nobody phoned or visited them to check up on them or to demand they give formal notice. To most regular folks a vote with your feet is a strong indication of your preference and choice.

To many exmos, having to fall into line with one last Mormon expectation is exceptionally irritating. And so they don't. Lack of involvement on an ongoing basis should be a big fat clue to the bishop of a ward that a person has no interest in their former church.

In the case of sonoftheleft hand, especially in a crisis situation, as he was, likely the very last thing he expected was to have to tell the Mormons to stay away. Understandable.

(GASP!)

People who work often / usually have co-workers!!!

U seem to have assumed that since it was a 'high official' in ChurchCo there was something phony or contrived about this, I'm not so sure!!

religion may not have been the issue-motivation for someone being polite/courteous in visiting you, 'eh?

He didn't tell his co-workers, and based on other posts in the thread, there is a history with this co-worker abusing his co-worker relationship to broaching religious discussions. It doesn't sound like it was a co-worker simply being "polite/courteous". From what I can tell from these posts, this was the standard TBM violating someone's privacy in a moment of vulnerability to guilt them back to church.

Henry:
The first rule of holes:
When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

At least Henry is not charging for pointing out that people are failing to live up to HIS standards.

Speaking of "charging," are those M quarters in the mail yet?

It is amazing to me that my obviously well-thought-out and logically tight opinions and arguments could make so many people upset. So, let's make it easy:

1. Can we agree that the Mormon Church is false, harmful and destructive of both individuals and families? (Do I really have to debate that point here?)

2. Can we agree that affiliating or identification with a religious organization that one knows engages in false, harmful and destructive doctrines, policies, and practices (a cult) is morally objectionable, at least absent *morally* overriding circumstances? (Do I really have to debate that point here?)

3. Can we agree that the Mormon Church engages in manipulative doctrines, policies, and practices whose purpose or effect is to discourage and prevent good and honest people from leaving after finding out the Church is false? (Do I really have to debate that point here?)

4. Can we agree that many people decide not to resign because they fear, in one way or another, the personal consequences of that would result from such manipulative doctrines, policies, and practices if they were to resign? (Do I really have to debate that point here?)

So, can we conclude from the above that absent a *morally compelling* reason NOT to resign, a person who discovers that the Mormon Church is false and destructive has a moral obligation to terminate their identification with such an organization?

It's pretty simple folks!

So, I am still waiting for the refutation of the above very simple and logically sound argument. If that is the "hole" I have dug so be it. But it is not I that has to lie in his hole, and try to dig myself out of it. You have to do that.

Oh, and all of this with no charge! :)

First, tell us the penalty for not agreeing with you.

I don't take ’risk’ lightly. If the penalty is too great, then I will steal away into the night. If we're playing King of the Mountain with anything more deadly than light sabers, count me out!

First, tell us the penalty for not agreeing with you.

COMMENT: No penalty. But, if you cannot articulate just why you don't agree with me, i.e. which of the above points you do not subscribe to, it perhaps should give you some pause about your own position on this issue. And, at the very least you should stop saying that this is only about living up to "my standards," and only a product of my personal opinion and arrogant dogmatism.

In all fairness, I will also note that there is a substantial loophole in the above argument centered on the acknowledgement that the argument fails if there is a "morally compelling and overriding reason" why a person should not resign. That question, of course, is up to the individual making the decision, and certainly not something I would dictate.

My whole point to the OP and others is that resigning or not resigning has not only practical but moral implications, as adjudged by the moral intuitions we all share. That means if someone chooses not to resign, it arguably should be because there are further moral considerations that compel a different decision.

In a nutshell, what bothers me is when someone trumps the moral mandate for resignation, not by well-thought-out overriding morally compelling reasons, but because of mere convenience or fear. Now, none of us are morally perfect, of course, but it seems to me that we should at least try to distinguish between when we are acting (or not acting) from moral principles and when we are acting (or not acting) merely for our own personal convenience and comfort.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a nutshell, what bothers me is when someone
> trumps the moral mandate for resignation, not by
> well-thought-out overriding morally compelling
> reasons, but because of mere convenience or fear.
> Now, none of us are morally perfect, of course,
> but it seems to me that we should at least try to
> distinguish between when we are acting (or not
> acting) from moral principles and when we are
> acting (or not acting) merely for our own personal
> convenience and comfort.

I love nuts, not so much their shells. ;)

I don't have any "well-thought-out overriding morally compelling reasons" other than I love my family and I made the moral judgement call to give into my wife's request that she allow my children to be raised Mormon. She said she would have to leave me if I couldn't abide that.

I didn't want to and still don't want her to leave me or I to leave her.


Ah, that we all were able to be rational in our compelling moral conundrums in our lives.

I really feel for those living in larger Mormon communities. I imagine even if you do resign, there’s always the chance they’ll send the vultures in if you come onto their horizon. I remember my privacy being violated a couple of times like this but it was over social media, and it was then I deleted my account and started over with a rule for almost no Mormons. My best friend is Mormon but she respects me, so it’s all good so far. I’ve had no contact from the Mormon members since I resigned, and I put that down to me telling them that if they should ever contact me again, I would press charges for harassment. I honestly think if I hadn’t done that, I’d have had knocks on my door and I would have been hunted down, even though I’m officially no longer a member.
What you experienced here would have made me livid. There’s no excuse for this happening. However, sadly this does not surprise me in the least. But that’s on them. If you’re unable or unwilling to resign for some reason (apologies I’ve not had time to read the whole thread and I found this criticism of you very unpalatable), then it could be this might happen again. Let’s hope not! If it were me though, and something like this were to happen again, I would then kick up a fuss about it, complain, or press charges or whatever. In my experience, at least, it’s the only way. Because the Mormon corporation is so hot on reactivating members they will never give up. I remember being one of those people who truly believed this was a good thing. We were only ever forbidden in doing member missionary visits if there was some threat of legal action or the person had resigned and had stated very firmly for no contact. I’m sure you know all this however, and I’m sorry this happened to you.